LAWS(PAT)-2016-7-168

KAUSHALYA DEVI W/O LATE YOGESHWAR SAH R/O VILLAGE Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER, EASTERN RAILWAY, KOLKATA

Decided On July 11, 2016
Kaushalya Devi W/O Late Yogeshwar Sah R/O Village Appellant
V/S
Union Of India Through Its General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant appeal has been preferred by the claimant against an order dated 21.08.2012 passed by Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench in Claim Case No. OA 000149 of 2002, dismissing the same.

(2.) It has been pleaded that deceased Krishna Nandan Prasad Sah who boarded 812 Dn. DMU in a way Jamalpur to Sahebganj, having valid ticket on 27.07.2001 while he was to get down at Mirja Chowki Station for fetching water and during course thereof, accidentally slipped and fallen from the running train. During course thereof, the aforesaid Krishna Nandan Prasad Sah sustained grievous injuries was taken to Sadar Hospital, Sahebganj for treatment where he died during course thereof. The doctor had issued OD slip and on the basis thereof, UD Case No.16 of 2001 was registered. It has also been disclosed that ticket got lost during course of aforesaid incident. As the death occurred during course of untoward incident hence, claim petition was filed which has been rejected by the learned Tribunal on the ground of having the documents filed on behalf of claimant doubtful which made the whole case suspicious. Hence this appeal.

(3.) It has been submitted on behalf of appellant that learned tribunal had doubted the documents in casual manner without any basis and foundation and further, dismissal of the claim petition on that very score happens to be arbitrary, whimsical. To substantiate such plea, it has been submitted that no objection was ever raised on behalf of respondent/opposite party. Had there been, then in that event the learned tribunal should have called for the original document in order to verify the genuineness of the document having been filed on behalf of appellant/claimant. That being so, the approach of the learned tribunal is found contrary to the spirit of law whereupon is fit to be set aside. Also relied upon 2009(3) T.AC 349, 2008(4) PLJR 40 (SC)